Re: cdebconf 0.159
Hi,
Apologies for the delay in replies at the moment. Providing support for
the Australia last weekend, and Malaysia this weekend, so I'm mostly
sleeping on my free time...
On Sun, 2012-03-18 at 19:08 +0100, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> Quoting Regis Boudin (regis@boudin.name):
>
> > An obvious one for you should be the complete absence of i18n for
> > cdebconf itself. It would be nice if someone could review what I did
> > for
> > the frontend selection to make sure it's ok before marking the
> > templates
> > as translatable.
>
> Aren't texts identical to debconf ones? I was thinking so, so I never
> paid attention to this very strongly.
> At least they should be similar, so we should reuse debconf
> translations so that translators do not start from scratch.
No, I'm not that mad. I tried to make it so the text can be reused, so
the "conversion" only consists of a copy/paste of each individual name
and description.
The idea behind the change was to only display frontends that are
available, and have the possibility for potential out-of-tree frontends
to carry their own entirely.
Although I changed the Dialog/Readline/Gnome names to Newt/Text/GTK, it
was purely out of laziness, and I would be happy to revert them.
I was convinced I had explicitly asked if you could review it, but can't
find any trace of it, so I must have forgotten, my fault entirely.
Anyway, if some people could review what I did in cdebconf.config for
the frontend selection, and tell me whether to go ahead with it, or if I
should revert the the single static description, that would be great !
Regis
Reply to: